Skip to main content

View Diary: FAA Daily Intelligence Reports Identified al-Qaeda Threat (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One problem (none)
    Either Rice knew full well about the al-Qaeda threats or she didn't -- as National Security Advisor it's unclear which of those two options makes her look more stunningly incompetent -- but Al-Qaeda was such a well-known threat that the FAA referred to the terrorist group in fifty-two separate daily intel reports from April, 2001 to the time the attacks finally took place.

    The problem is, the NSA does not collect her own briefings.  You are assuming here that her underlings include FAA intel reports in their daily briefings for her—and I agree that they should have—which isn't necessarily the case.  Rice did not set up the NSC sub-structure, and the failure may rest with it, not with her.

    This does not absolve her, of course, but it is important to avoid logical inconsistencies when you are accusing someone of lying to the nation.

    What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

    by RFTR on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:57:51 PM PST

    •  Begging you pardon (none)
      but if you're NSA and do not know about over 52 briefings (52 just between April and the event)is just laughable. No offense to your post because I see you are trying to play devils advocate, but it is the job of the NSA to know about the security stance of the nation. How could she not know. If this is not the case then why hold the memos back, if she had valid excuses.
      •  52 warnings in six mos (4.00)
        and they did not prevent this, but yet they had 19 pictures of all hijackers within two days.

        Our White House is covered in green and black Slime oozing out of it, this is sick.

        •  Plus, they (none)
          used their own failures to justify the granting to them of even more surveillance powers and the erosion of civil liberties, all in the name of needing new resources to fight terror.

          As if what they had wasn't enough.

          I'd cry, if this wasn't all so absurd as to almost be surreal.

          And, to top it all off, they've gotten away with all this shit so far and been rewarded by the majority of the American public for it.

          Do  we live in a great country, or what?

      •  All I'm saying (none)
        is that it may be the fault of her OFFICE, but not specifically her.  Until we know what process was in place to get that information in front of her face, we can't assign blame.

        What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

        by RFTR on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:03:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it was people in her office (none)
          ...she's still responsible.
          •  Maybe, maybe not (none)
            It depends.  Portions of the NSA's office and their functions are mandated by law.  What would be more productive than simply blaming her is figuring out WHY she didn't have that information.  It may turn out she didn't instruct her people properly, in which case the fault lies with her, AND a lesson has been learned.

            If, however, it turns out that the way the office was mandated, there was no way for her to have that information (for example, if that information was supposed to get to the President through other members of the NSC, say, the CIA chief), then we need to track that down.  Either way, simply blaming Rice accomplishes nothing for the future except for partisan self-congratulatory back-slapping.

            Let's GET something out of this, instead of just getting angrier!

            What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

            by RFTR on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:13:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  My guess is that (4.00)
          if it had to do with terrorism, she was putting it on the back-burner. So it can be argued that no matter the system in place, she made the decision on the priorities of national security and terrorism was at or near the bottom.

          If she had just met with Richard Clarke and had taken his warnings seriously, there's a good chance at least some of these warnings would have made it to here desk.

          Therefore I say; Guilty of the death of 2000+ people on 9/11.

          And I'll add that if the right person had been President this could have all been avoided.

        •  I expect she thought hair on fire was (none)
          just a look too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site